Peter Bottomley: The Secretary of State will understand that an increase in cycling can lead to a lower risk for each cyclist but a greater number of casualties among cyclists—that is one of the consequences of modal shift. Will he ensure that his study, when it is published, shows both that crashes are a consequence of conflict, and that secondary protection makes a difference? Will he ensure that a comparison is made between the Netherlands, where cyclists tend not to wear energy-absorbing helmets, and this country, where cyclists do tend to wear them, even though the CTC has not got around to recommending it?

Vera Baird: As the hon. Lady says, that is really a matter for the Department of Health. However, the Equality Bill places a duty on all public-sector bodies to ensure that they end discrimination and promote the well-being of all the protected strands. That will be a useful weapon, and will help to ensure that services are spread more evenly across the country.

David Heath: I am told that today is national dance like a chicken day, which may be apposite for activities in the House over the past week. While we have been obsessing—necessarily—about what has emerged in  The Daily Telegraph, the world has continued: people have been losing their jobs, businesses have been closing, and people have lost their homes. We need to concentrate on that as well.
	I understood the Leader of the House to have given a commitment a few months ago that each week there would be a debate or a Question Time on the economy. I cannot see either in next week's business or in the provisional business for the week after the recess. May I suggest that we might use one of the general debates in those weeks for a debate on unemployment? There are now 2.2 million people in this country who are unemployed, and we could discuss what we can do to address that.
	I and various other hon. Members from all parties last week pointed out to the Leader of the House that only one day had been provided for the Report and remaining stages of the Policing and Crime Bill. That is clearly inadequate, and I hoped that the complaints made from all sides of the House would be recognised. We still have only one day for a Bill that is exceedingly complex, and it is almost certain that we will not reach key sections. Even at this late stage, will she look again at the timetabling of the Bill?
	May we have a debate on class sizes? Departmental statistics were supposed to be released on 7 May, but they were unaccountably delayed for a week until yesterday—perhaps because they show that 29,200 children between the ages of five and seven are now taught in classes of more than 30, despite the Government's absolute pledge to do away with all classes of that size. How can that be? May we have a debate on the matter?
	May we also have a debate on the state of our nation's roads? Anyone who drives around Somerset, Wiltshire and neighbouring counties will know that the roads have deteriorated very badly. They are full of potholes and there is a massive problem with the backlog of road maintenance—it is estimated that the average shortfall for each authority across the country is £6 million. The state of the roads causes danger and discomfort, especially to cyclists—I can vouch for that—and many people are concerned that money is being spent on compensation for road accident victims rather than on doing something about the cause of those accidents. May we therefore have a debate on the state of the roads?
	Lastly, a while ago I caused some grief to the right hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) when he was the Minister dealing with the Bill that became the Licensing Act 2003. He incurred the wrath of folk singers in Somerset, including the redoubtable Wurzels, when he set out his plans for live music. The number of venues for live music, and the number of pubs and bars that provide live music, has declined, as we predicted. The Licensing Act has brought some advantages, but it has also brought about a dire state in the provision of live music in pubs, and many difficulties for voluntary bodies such as village halls. May we have a debate on the operation of the Act, so that we can explore how we can improve the situation and revitalise the music industry in this country?

Harriet Harman: Many hon. Members have been asked by their local newspapers, which are read by the constituents who elected them, to put details of their own claims and the payments received in the public domain so that the local newspaper can report them. Many hon. Members want to do that because, having been elected by their constituents, they feel that their constituents are entitled to know where their Member of Parliament stands amidst all of this. The difficulty is that the information on the claims and payments made that we have been given by the House authorities in electronic form cannot be given to local newspapers because it includes all sorts of information that to give out would breach the freedom of information laws. For example, if I gave out the information about my expenses to the  South London Press, which I want to do without having to wait for the House authorities to do so, I would be putting in the public domain the bank statements of my assistant, who is not at all keen that I should do that. I understand why, and it would be breaking the law.
	This morning I asked the Clerk of the House if we could have not only a read-only copy but one that we could pass on to our local paper with the genuinely personal bits crossed out, and he is discussing that with the House authorities. That is not the situation at the moment and hon. Members will just have to tell their local newspapers that they can either come in and read the hard copies, with the personal parts, such as bank account details, crossed out, or simply wait for the House of Commons to enable us to provide an electronic copy. All local newspapers should recognise that although many hon. Members would not feel obliged to respond to national newspapers, they do feel accountable to their local constituents. The local newspapers report to the local constituents and Members want to be accountable to them.

Evan Harris: In the reply of the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on the Policing and Crime Bill, she laid down an astonishing remarkable new doctrine that the Government will decide which parts of Bills the House scrutinises—she says DNA, gangs, prostitution and lap dancing—and that it will be up to the Government to decide that we do not look at the 12 clauses on police reform, the 14 clauses on extradition, the six clauses on alcohol, the 16 clauses on proceeds of crime and other matters. There are also 41 miscellaneous clauses. Is it now the case that the Government decide that we will be allowed to scrutinise some bits on the Floor of House and some that we will not? Furthermore, has she any plans to negotiate with Front and Back Benchers over where the knives go in the limited time that we will now have to non-scrutinise this important piece of legislation?

Harriet Harman: There will be consultation, as there ought to be, on the programme motion and the allocation of time for different parts of the Bill. In my comments earlier, I was trying to respond to the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in the House last week—gangs, DNA, control for gain of prostitution, lap dancing, and, additionally, alcohol. I in no way meant that those were the only issues that the House would want to debate. I was just reflecting back and cognising that those were important issues that he raised last time, but certainly other issues are also important. We will have as much discussion as we can and will try, if possible, to reach agreement on the allocation of time in the full day's debate on Report. I will try to ensure that no statement or any other business cuts into that time.

Harriet Harman: I will bring to the attention of the Home Office Minister responsible for immigration that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of Dr. Anjali Shetty in the House. She could seek a meeting with immigration Ministers, but I also remind her that Home Office questions on Monday might give her an opportunity to raise the matter with them.

Harriet Harman: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has mixed up two issues that are not the same. I have not rejected anybody's concerns about Equitable Life. I explained the process: as soon as John Chadwick's interim report is ready, it will be brought to the House. I am not rejecting anybody's concerns; indeed, I share those concerns—we feel strongly about the matter and will bring it back to the House.
	I have also not rejected the concerns that were raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and others about the Policing and Crime Bill. It is not so much an issue of this House. The issue is how we make sure that the Bill completes its passage through this House, but also the House of Lords and that we have an opportunity to deal with Lords amendments. It is not just a question of when we are in recess but what happens when the Bill goes from this House to the House of Lords and returns in time so that we can consider Lords amendments.

Sri Lanka

Virendra Sharma: Everybody appreciates and is thankful for the Foreign Secretary's intervention, the statement from the USA and the visit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), the special envoy, to Sri Lanka. However, despite the statement made on Monday, thousands of people have still been killed and the bombing is still going on; we can see the photographs today in the free papers distributed in the London underground. There is enough evidence. The communities over here are not satisfied; they are worried about, and unaware of what is happening to, their loved ones. The communities, particularly the Tamil community, would like more and more intervention into the situation.

Bill Rammell: I emphatically understand the frustration of people who want the conflict to be brought to a conclusion. The reality is that, despite our best efforts, the conflict is still going on. I say that to describe the scale of the challenge that we face, but in no way do I mean that we will stop our unstinting efforts to try to bring the conflict to a conclusion.
	The civilians to whom I have referred are in constant fear for their lives; they also desperately need food, drinking water and medicines. The regular operation of the International Committee of the Red Cross ship, which makes deliveries and evacuates the wounded, depends fundamentally on security. That is another reason why the Sri Lankan Government must uphold their commitment to stop using heavy weapons.
	The second crisis revolves around the conditions for civilians who manage to escape the fighting. We welcome the fact that more than 190,000 civilians, including more than 120,000 during the past four weeks, have been able to escape it and are now registered in the camps for internally displaced persons. The ability of the relevant agencies depends on the full co-operation of the Sri Lankan Government. Bluntly, that has not been forthcoming.
	Owing to those concerns and others, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and French Foreign Minister Kouchner visited Sri Lanka on 29 April. They made it clear to the President and Foreign Minister that the protection of civilians must be paramount and that the conflict must end. Since their visit, and the welcome visit made by the cross-party group of MPs, made up of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne)—he sends his apologies for not being here today; he is speaking about the Sri Lankan crisis elsewhere—the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) and the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Buckingham (John Bercow), there has been some improvement in the issuing of visas to the staff of the humanitarian agencies and in those agencies' ability to move around the country.
	However, more needs to be done. We will continue to press for improved access for the humanitarian agencies to the internally displaced persons and for adequate supplies of food, water and medicines to reach those in need. We are also calling on the Sri Lankan Government to ensure that the screening of IDPs is carried out in a fully transparent way that respects human rights and the dignity of those involved.
	The Sri Lankan Government also need to give free access to the international media. Let me be clear: what is needed is greater access and transparency, not less. As I have said in this place before, hon. Members across parties have been criticised and attacked by the Sri Lankan high commission for speaking out and expressing their legitimate concerns about the actions of the Sri Lankan Government. Such criticism of MPs who are doing their jobs legitimately on behalf of their constituents is wrong and unacceptable.
	As hon. Members will know, the Government have led in mobilising international pressure to bring about an improvement on the ground. In January, the Prime Minister was the first world leader to call for a ceasefire, and he has since repeated that call directly to President Rajapaksa. The Foreign Secretary has made the same call in his numerous contacts with the Sri Lankan President and Foreign Minister, in public statements and in concert with others, notably the United States and France.

Keith Simpson: It is not only morally wrong, but stupid. If one has surrounded an area, there is a fair chance that if one starts lobbing artillery shells around one will get overshooting and might kill and injure some of one's own troops. Without being facetious, it is, as Talleyrand might have said, more than a crime—it is a mistake. Sadly, it is one of many mistakes that the Sri Lankan Government have made.
	As the Minister said, in excess of 140,000 civilians are now in IDP camps. Although the conditions in those camps are not as bad as in some that hon. Members have visited in other parts of the world, such as Darfur, they are not good, and they are not open to proper international inspection or to the media. What evidence do the Government have as regards the accusation made by several people who have had access to the camps that the Sri Lankan Government are weeding out young Tamils, not only directly because they are thought to have been active on the military side, but because they are young men, and they have gone into a category that I can only call "the disappeared"? Are we any closer to being able to persuade the Sri Lankan Government to respond to the request by the United Nations, the UK Government and other Governments for greater access to the camps?
	On the demonstration in Parliament square by the British Tamil community, I would like to support the Ministers' comments. I think, on the whole, that although they have inconvenienced large parts of London, they have been within the natural bounds of such demonstrations. Given that many of them have relatives who have been killed, injured or wounded, or are under threat of all three, there is a natural emotion there.
	Following the demonstrations, the debates that we have had in this House, and the formal requests made by the Government to the Sri Lankan Government, is there any evidence that the Sri Lankan Government have in any way moderated any of their policies? I said in our last debate, although I did not wish to be a Jonah, that I feared that they are not open to any persuasion at all. Indeed, I get the impression from colleagues who have recently returned from Sri Lanka that, if anything, they become even more intransigent in having these legitimate points put to them—although that is not a reason for us not to do it. The House should recognise—this is not to undermine the activities that have been undertaken—that, sadly, there seems to be no evidence that the Sri Lankan Government are prepared to moderate their policies. I suspect that that is because they still believe that in a matter of days or weeks they will have gained a military victory over the LTTE. However, as the Minister and other hon. Members have said, they will win the narrow military war but lose the peace; this will rebound on them.

Neil Gerrard: I suspect that there will be a lot of agreement in this debate—virtual unanimity—as there has been in earlier debates on this subject. I am one of quite a number of Members who have been accused of being supporters of the LTTE when we have spoken up in these debates. I hold no brief for the LTTE. I know that many Tamils regard them as freedom fighters, but I know something of their history and hold no brief for them. The Government of Sri Lanka need to understand that we are criticising them not because we are supporters of the LTTE but because what they are doing is totally and completely unacceptable from any Government.
	I am supporting the Tamil people, who for years and years have been denied political rights in Sri Lanka and have suffered from human rights abuses such as the disappearances and extrajudicial killings that have gone on, and the assassination of journalists who have said anything critical of the Government. I am supporting people in my constituency who have friends and relative about whom they are desperately worried. They are fearful about what has happened to them and cannot get in touch with them. They fear that they are trapped in Vanni, among the civilians who are still being shelled by the Sri Lankan army.
	Civilians are entitled to protection from Governments. It is no good trying to draw equivalence between the Government and the LTTE, because Governments have duties under international law and conventions. To give one example, the protection of hospitals and medical care is one of the cornerstones of the Geneva conventions to which Governments sign up, but it is being totally and completely ignored at the moment.
	The key question is what we should do. It seems crystal clear that, as has been said this afternoon, the Government of Sri Lanka are simply not interested in a ceasefire at the moment. They believe that this is their opportunity to crush the LTTE once and for all. That is why they will not allow international observers and international organisations into the area. They believe that this is a war that they are about to win and that will be the end of the LTTE. The fact is, I do not believe that they can win this war.
	Even if the Sri Lankan Government manage to take the last bit of land that is currently occupied by LTTE, I am not convinced that that will mean the end of the LTTE. I am absolutely convinced that it will not mean the end of the problems, because nothing will solve them in the longer term except a political solution. That solution has to mean the recognition of the political and human rights of Tamil people in the whole of Sri Lanka. We must try to ensure that the people responsible for some of the criminal acts that have gone on and are still going on are brought to justice. I cannot see any move towards that at the moment within Sri Lanka.
	As long as the Government of Sri Lanka believe that they can act with impunity and continue to deny access to international organisations, the international media and international observers, they will continue to do exactly what they are doing now. The only way in which that will change is through international pressure. I know that the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have been doing what they can, but we simply need to do more. We must try to get a resolution through the UN. We should be considering suspension of Sri Lanka from the Commonwealth. We should make sure that Sri Lanka does not get money from the International Monetary Fund.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred to isolation, which is an important sanction, but until the Government of Sri Lanka feel that they are being isolated, they will not significantly change their policies. They must realise that they will not be supported, through arms sales, international finance and trade, as long as the killing continues and people in Sri Lanka are denied basic human and political rights.

Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott). No Conservative Member has done more for the Tamil cause than him. I pay tribute to him not only for his speech and his work, but for clearly putting the shopping list to the Government: we should not give any more money from the IMF; ensure that we get a resolution before the Security Council insisting on a ceasefire; and call for suspension from the Commonwealth. I would go one stage further. Why are we even considering allowing Sri Lanka to host the next Commonwealth conference in 2011? We should make it very clear to Sri Lanka that we will not be present if that happens.
	I have three emotions today: pride, anger and despair. The pride is in what the Government have done. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for all his meetings with Members on both sides of the House, to the Prime Minister, who has met the all-party delegation twice, to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), for his work on the matter, and to the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). Ministers have been prepared to take calls from Members who are concerned about the matter at all times of the day or night. I rang the Under-Secretary at five o'clock in the morning. I thought he was in Worcester; he was actually in Indonesia, but he still took my call.
	My concern is that we are still not doing enough. To paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who has become a mini-diplomat in her own right, visiting all the countries that are on the Security Council, and encouraging us all to attend, the Foreign Secretary is our friend as are all those on our Front Bench—and Labour Back Benchers do not check their speeches with those on their Front Bench—but from friends we expect more. I thought that the Minister of State gave us a Foreign Office speech today. I know, because I have been a Foreign Office Minister. The Foreign Office is full of wonderful people, it is the best in the world, and the greatest diplomatic service anywhere, but the speech was still couched in diplomatic terms. This House wants more.
	The eloquent speeches of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) indicate that my hon. Friend has the united will of the House behind him. He has political cover, but his speech was not enough. What is the point of this great, wonderful country of ours, which I love and which I came to as a first-generation immigrant—I chose to come here, I was not born here—and which has so many values that are followed by Parliaments and peoples all over the world, sitting on the Security Council? What is the point of hearing condemnations here and there, which of course we welcome, if we do not get something done.
	We intervened in Kosovo. I accepted the dossier presented to the House by the previous Prime Minister, and I voted to intervene in Iraq. I say that we cannot stand aside. The hon. Member for Ilford, North said that he cannot face his Tamil constituents if we do nothing. I cannot face coming to this place if our wonderful Government, who have done so much, will not take the next step. What is the point of the UN if we do not take effective action to stop what is happening? There is a ship off the coast of Sri Lanka with tons of food that should be delivered to innocent people who are dying and being killed by their own Government, who are committing genocide against their own people, and the world stands by and issues statements. People have had enough. They want firm action to be taken. If the United States, Britain and India—they have all condemned the genocide—cannot act together to stop the genocide, nobody can.

Siobhain McDonagh: The Sri Lankan Government believe that we will not do anything. They believe that Governments around the world make statements but are not prepared to back them up. They believe that the United Nations will talk and not pass a resolution. They believe that the Commonwealth will talk and not suspend them, and may even allow them to hold a Commonwealth conference when it perceives all this as being over in 2011. They are not looking for our good opinion. They are not looking for all of us to be united. They want to be secure in the knowledge that we are happy to make statements and do nothing. A bully does not stop because you ask him to; a bully stops because you force him to.
	We are simply seeing hundreds and thousands of people dying, starving to death on our watch. We are looking at the failure of all the institutions that Members hold dear. What is the UN worth if it can see people doubly amputated on a beach and not pick them up and remove them? What is the point of a Commonwealth that does nothing about a country that is prepared to bomb its own people and then insult everyone's intelligence by suggesting it is not doing that?
	The Minister may think there is not enough evidence to prove that the Sri Lankan Government are currently bombing their own people, and he may be the only person in the world who thinks that, because we all know that it is happening. The newspapers know it is happening, and the UN knows it is happening. The point is, what are we going to do about it?
	The Sri Lankan Government believe they will get their loan from the International Monetary Fund, and who here is prepared to say that when they start defaulting on their loans the IMF will not back down? They believe that nothing will happen, and we have to prove that something will. That means that if there are demonstrations outside, we must encourage the Tamil community to take the action that they feel they need to take. It means we must not suggest that it is a good idea to use water cannon on people, or that this constitutes an inconvenience and not a priority for us.
	We have responsibilities as Members, but we also have responsibilities as consumers. Why is it that a company such as Marks and Spencer, one of the most respected companies in the country, can spend a fortune using Sri Lankan suppliers, and no one says anything? How many companies in this country happily use Sri Lanka, and no one knows? How many people have shares in those companies, while making statements against the Sri Lankan Government?
	We have learned from our past international endeavours that it takes peoples and individuals to stand up to some of these mighty organisations, whether we are talking about Barclays bank in the case of apartheid or about any other company. We need to come together and, constructively, argue not only with the UN and the Commonwealth but with our own companies, as consumers, about what they are continuing to do. I hope we can do that in the coming weeks.
	We have to ask what is the biggest single thing we can do to cause a shock to the Sri Lankan Government. Is there any point in Britain's retaining an ambassador in Sri Lanka? What is that mission doing there? Is it saving anyone, is it protecting anyone, or it is giving succour to the Sri Lankan Government? I am absolutely confident that if the countries that have made the biggest statements—Britain, France or America—decided to remove their ambassadors, we would see change. The question is, how much do we care, and how much do we want to see change?

John Bercow: It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who spoke with an integrity, passion and eloquence that will have been admired by Members on both sides of the House.
	Like the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), I was a member of the five-person delegation to Sri Lanka that was led by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne). I was pleased to be part of that, and did it on the basis that I had no previous Sri Lankan footprint. To my knowledge, I do not have a significant number of Tamils in my Buckingham constituency. What I do have is a passionate interest in international affairs, human rights and the need to avoid, or minimise, conflict. I want, very briefly, to say something abut the Sri Lankan Government, about the camps that we visited, and about the future for the country as a whole.
	Let me be clear, like the right hon. Member for Gordon: the Government of Sri Lanka are still fundamentally in denial. They were given to ostentatious and bellicose denunciations of all and sundry who had dared to criticise them. They were extraordinarily rude, and inappropriately so, about the Foreign Secretary. They took umbrage at our raising critical evidence against them. For example, when I mentioned, during a meeting with the President, the UN's satellite photography, which appeared to repudiate the notion that they had stuck to their 12 February commitment not to deploy heavy weaponry, the President's response was both to complain bitterly about UN spying and to rant at me about adopting a neo-colonialist posture. The House will not be surprised to learn that I was not intimidated by the rant, or indeed impressed by it, but rant it nevertheless was, and it will not do. We are entitled to hold that Government to account.
	We underlined the imperative of a ceasefire. We said that heavy weaponry must not be used. We said, "You cannot secure a military victory, and if you think you are behaving properly in the face of a considerable body of evidence to the contrary, glasnost must apply. Open up; let people witness what is taking place; allow the international aid agencies, and in particular the media, to inspect the territory and judge for themselves whether you are behaving properly."
	Let me next say something about the camps. We visited two zones of a camp called Menik Farm, which had been established only about a week earlier. Tents were more or less universally provided and everyone was housed, albeit in extremely spartan conditions. There was anecdotal evidence of a reasonable number of latrines and some evidence of a decent water supply, but much more needed to be done about sanitation.
	I was horrified to be told by students receiving tuition in business studies and by their tutor—this was at four o'clock in the afternoon—that they had not had a single thing to eat in the course of the day. That is lamentable and unsatisfactory, and must be changed without delay.
	What the right hon. Member for Gordon said was true. When we asked individuals in the camps, independently of each other and in the absence of any military personnel—whom we had told, in language that would not be acceptable in Parliament, that they needed to absent themselves from the scene—why they had not escaped from the conflict zone earlier, those people, to a man and a woman, volunteered that they had been prevented from doing so by the LTTE on pain of being shot dead, and that they knew of others who had been. The position needs to be put on the record: the LTTE is a pretty poisonous force. But we were not there to stand up for the LTTE. We were there to have discussions, to observe the situation for ourselves and to challenge the Government of Sri Lanka, and we make no apology for doing that.
	The third point that I wish to make concerns the future. The Government of Sri Lanka are still obsessed with complaining about people waving banners and flags in Parliament square. We explained to them the principle and practice of the operational independence of the police. I remember saying to Foreign Minister Bogollagama that the idea that just because people demonstrate or wave a flag—even of a proscribed organisation—it would be justified for the police to wade in and round them up, or fire tear gas or water cannon at them, is for the birds, as that is simply not reasonable or proportionate. There has to be a constitutional blueprint for a sustainable future for all the people of Sri Lanka. The idea that there can be a military victory—that the LTTE can be wiped out and that the problem can be physically removed and that will be the end of the matter—is nonsense on stilts, and the Government of Sri Lanka need to be clear about that.
	I went there, as others did, trying to be relatively impartial by taking note of the evidence but not seeking to take sides. However, I say to those who have much more experience on this subject than I do that since we came back the situation has got worse: the killing has continued, civilians have suffered, and there have been indiscriminate attacks. Unless the Government of Sri Lanka very quickly and in short order recognise the scale of international anger and change their behaviour, it will be inevitable that the multilateral institutions on which we depend for civilisation will assert themselves to take the strongest possible action against the regime. It is in the regime's hands to behave properly or to face the consequences.

Simon Hughes: I absolutely support that, and I ask the Minister to indicate in his wind-up that the Government have begun the work on investigating war crimes and are working with other partners—I know that the US is active on this—to ensure that the Sri Lankan Government know that that is happening so that those who are responsible are held to account.
	I wish to make only two further points, because we want everybody to contribute to this debate. The first follows some of the other requests that have been made. Another way of effectively making the point to the Sri Lankan Government is for the Governments of the other Commonwealth countries, other countries in the EU and the United States simultaneously to call in the high commission ambassadors and warn them that if there is not a stop to the Sri Lankan Government's military action, there will be a peaceful but immediate intervention. That concerted sign has to be given, because all the pleas have so far fallen on deaf ears.
	Lastly, I am very conscious of the fact that this House has become very united and very determined on this issue. I am grateful that the Foreign Affairs Committee looks as though it will respond to the petitions presented on behalf of our Tamil communities here by considering the human rights issues in its human rights report. But this situation is a challenge to the effectiveness of our democracies and our democratic Governments, and so far, in the moment of the greatest need of any people from this country since I was elected 25 years or so ago, our democratic system has been found wanting. We have to do more if the effectiveness of our own democracy is not to be undermined and if we are not to let down people whose relatives are threatened with the prospect of not being alive tomorrow.

Barry Gardiner: I wish to make just three points. On Monday, having spent many hours, and after seven separate phone numbers had been given to me, I was able finally to make representations to try, with the UK Border Agency, to block the deportation of a young women, whom I shall simply call Laksna, aged 21. She had been sexually assaulted by the Sri Lankan security forces and had come to this country seeking asylum, but she was facing deportation. I want to put on the record my gratitude to the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Borders and Immigration for the way in which, after I had eventually discovered that despite those representations to block the deportation that woman had been taken to Heathrow and was about to be put on the plane—that was in stark contrast to the assurances that I had been given by the UKBA—they ensured that that young woman was sent back into detention in Yarl's Wood and was not deported. Can this Minister assure me that the country assessment that the UK has now made of Sri Lanka has been communicated to the Home Office and that no further deportations of Tamil asylum seekers will be allowed?
	The second point that I wish to make is that it is time that relatives of the members of the Sri Lankan regime were no longer deemed welcome in this country, whether they are here studying as students—as immediate family of the President have been—or in other ways. Diplomatic sanctions must now be imposed, and those people, including more distant relatives, should be told that they are not welcome in this country.
	Finally, unless this House looks at the strategic relationship between Sri Lanka and China—a point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman—including the investment made in the port at Hambantota, we will not see a full resolution of this conflict.

Andrew Lansley: Since my father was, 30-something years ago, chairman of the Institute of Biomedical Sciences, I am sure that biomedical scientists will not be least among those who will appreciate what my hon. Friend says on that matter.
	A debate gives us an opportunity to discuss some of the issues, as distinct from asking questions, as we have been able to do after the statements that the Secretary of State has kindly made. In particular, as we begin to discuss the nature of the virus and how it might spread, there has been a tendency on the part of many in the media to assume that even though the flu that we are discussing is very much milder than the 1918 flu, the pattern of its impact will be like that of the 1918 flu. In 1918, of course, there was an initial, relatively mild spread, in which no very large proportion of the population was affected. About three months later, there was a severe impact, with large numbers of cases and a very high fatality rate. In early 1919, there was a third wave. The assumption is that, somehow, it must happen like that.
	It is important for us to bear it in mind that in 1976 in north America an H1N1 virus circulated. It was not particularly severe. It did not have a clinical attack rate on the scale of that in 1918. Quite properly, the American Administration at the time developed a vaccine, but in the expectation that the virus would recur in a second wave, in the way it had done in 1918, they vaccinated the whole population, which, as it turned out, was an error; they should not have done so. There were significant side effects. There was not a second wave. Clearly, with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the proper public health response would have been to acquire the vaccine—to stockpile it—and then to see whether there was an intimation that a second wave was coming. I hope that the Secretary of State does not dissent from that.
	That is not to say that we necessarily know what the strategy needs to be, but it is important that we do not make an assumption at this point about the future profile of the spread of the virus. For that matter, we do not know whether there will be sustained transmission in other countries. Clearly, from Mexico to America, between, it turns out, the middle of February to the middle of April, there were significant opportunities for the virus to spread from Mexico to America, which made it very difficult for the Americans to achieve containment. However, in many other countries, we are achieving containment. If we can continue to do so, we may find that we can delay phase 6 until we have made dramatic progress in the development of a vaccine. That is important to bear in mind.
	I confess that this is entirely speculative, but when one looks at the genetic make-up of the virus—as I know will be done, not least in Mill Hill—and compares it to viruses in the past, it is interesting to see that it emerged in north America, and that H1N1 in 1976 was, to some extent, related to the outbreak in 1918 in a very limited way. It is also interesting that in Mexico, the virus has impacted on younger adults. Arguably, it is possible that some older adults in Mexico had some vestigial immunity from exposure to it in 1976. It may or may not bear some genetic relationship to the H1N1 that circulated in 1976, but if it does, that would point to it being less likely to be virulent and severe than was originally feared when it first emerged.
	The Secretary of State and I share a view about how to respond to this matter. I score no points on this. The Opposition have raised issues with Ministers on 77 occasions since June 2004, and we have talked to Ministers repeatedly, including the Secretary of State's predecessors, about the importance of pandemic preparedness—admittedly in the context of H5N1, which would be a major threat. Issues such as the antiviral stockpile, the stockpile of face masks, and the need for critical care capacity and for an advanced purchase contract have all been the subject of our questions to and responses from Ministers.
	My only reservation about Britain's preparedness was that the extension of the antiviral stockpile could have been initiated sooner, rather than when H1N1 emerged in Mexico. Clearly there is the issue with the national flu line, which I asked the Secretary of State about, and the Government would have achieved that sooner had it been possible to do so. As for stockpiling face masks and gloves, the French bought 200 million, from recollection, in about the latter part of 2005, so there is a gap between what we were asking about and what has been achieved. None the less, we are among the best prepared countries in the world, and I will return to what that might mean in terms of our obligations in relation to other countries.
	I want to raise about half a dozen points, both to express a view and to see whether the Minister can add anything beyond what the Secretary of State has already said when she replies. The Secretary of State knows the Opposition's view on vaccine availability, because he has kindly involved us in conversations about this from time to time. By way of a brief detour, I should say we must not get this out of proportion. The Imperial college modelling talked about a central estimate of a 30 per cent. clinical attack rate, and a 0.4 per cent. fatality rate, but that was on a global basis. The virus may spread to a quarter or more of the British population in the longer term, but we have good reasons at the moment—not least because in America there have been just three fatalities compared with more than 3,000 confirmed cases—to hope that the fatality rate in this regard in a developed health economy will be low, and barely more than would be the case for seasonal flu. That being the case, it does not suggest that it is in the interests of a country such as Britain for seasonal flu vaccine production to be diverted at this point to pandemic flu vaccine production. Our view, which I expressed to the Secretary of State earlier in the week, is that we would certainly support the continuation of seasonal flu production, not least because we are probably only about two months away from the point at which, in a normal process, the availability of that vaccine would have been achieved. That gives us the basis on which we could move on towards pandemic vaccine production immediately.
	We would support the securing of an additional supply of a vaccine for the novel H1N1 virus on a pre-pandemic basis in parallel with seasonal flu vaccine production if that is possible, as the Secretary of State says. If the seed strain is available in a matter of days, we may infer that, probably by the end of September, supplies of a vaccine would, if necessary, begin to become available for health care workers and others who are most likely to be at risk. The chances are that any second wave would be initiated by an event such as the return of children to school—schools tend to be the so-called super-spreaders and the virus tends to spread faster among young people, meaning that it could be transmitted through the population.

Andrew Lansley: I understand my hon. Friend's point. My answer—I hope the Secretary of State agrees—is that we would normally expect to invite people to come for seasonal flu vaccine in late September or early October, and I see no reason why we should do differently. The period between now and then gives us the opportunity to learn far more about the nature of H1N1 and who it is likely to impact.
	It is important to remember that we may be dealing with very different kinds of flu. Obviously, seasonal flu tends to have an impact particularly on older people, which is why they are summoned for seasonal flu vaccination, but H1N1 has an impact on younger adults, so by late autumn we may be dealing with different vaccination programmes with different population groups being targeted as priorities.
	To be absolutely clear about the use of the antiviral stockpile, I think we agree that for the time being, we are devoted to containment, which requires post-exposure prophylaxis, meaning that everyone who is known to have come into contact with the virus should get the antivirals. We should sustain that for as long as we know that containment stands a chance of success. However, it is important for the public to know something about the trigger for shifting from a strategy of containment to one of mitigation. For example, when we reach 200 cases of seasonal flu per 100,000 population in a week—that is on the Royal College of General Practitioners flu line—we say that the virus is circulating in the community. Are we talking about a similar or a lower number of cases in relation to the novel H1N1 virus? Are we talking about the point at which significant numbers of people are confirmed as having the virus but we cannot identify how they contracted it? What sort of volumes are we talking about? What are the triggers to shift from containment to mitigation?
	Once we are in mitigation, I cannot see, given what we know about our access to antivirals now and for the rest of the year, why we should not sustain a policy of household prophylaxis to support families by reducing the impact, and post-exposure prophylaxis for health and social care workers to keep them at work. That will not stop people getting flu, but it may well mean that large numbers of people find they are affected very little. They can then be vaccinated which, in the long run, will reduce the number of people who have to be hospitalised or, indeed, the numbers who die.
	The Secretary of State did not talk about school closures, but I should like to inquire whether the Government wish to have a debate on the matter. The Americans have moved quite quickly from a policy of closing a school at the point when a case is confirmed in the school to a policy of not closing schools but carrying on, because the economic detriment is greater than the benefit to be derived from school closure and the virus is now assumed to be circulating generally in the population in America. Those are difficult judgments, because one is balancing, on the one hand, the pace of spread of a virus with a health impact on the population against, on the other, the economic, educational and other impacts of maintaining a policy of school closures. The Americans have chosen the path of stopping automatic school closures quite quickly. Clearly, in our present circumstances, it is right for us to implement school closures where cases are confirmed. The Government's contingency plan does not contemplate moving away from a closure policy, but given the American experience and the nature of the virus, is it not time for us to think about and discuss such a move?

Norman Lamb: I start by expressing my appreciation of the fact that this debate is taking place; it is an opportunity to discuss further the development of a potential flu pandemic. I join the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) in thanking the Secretary of State for updating us between the debates in Parliament; that is appreciated, and helpful from our point of view. Finally, I pass on my thanks and appreciation to national health service staff—pathology staff, in particular; the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire also referred to them. They are working beyond the call of duty at the moment, and that is appreciated by all. The Secretary of State gave encouraging news about a pre-pandemic vaccine. That is an encouraging development.
	We face something of a difficulty at the moment in that this item has slipped off the news agenda, not only because other items relating to this place are rather dominating things, but because the prevalence and virulence of the flu has so far been slight. There is therefore a danger that we are lulled into a false sense of security and people start to say, "What's all the fuss about? Hasn't there been an overreaction? People who have suffered from it have recovered very quickly." It is very important—the Secretary of State made this clear, and I share his view—that we maintain absolute focus on this, and get the message across to the public, in recognising that we do not know the implications of this or the extent to which the virulence will increase as the strain develops and potentially changes in character.
	I was struck by a recent BBC report about what is happening in the United States, which noted that there has been a significant increase in reported cases. The numbers have gone up by 600 since last Friday, and there have been 2,532 cases. As the Conservative spokesman said, the Americans are no longer closing schools because the disease is now recognised to be in the general community. The truth is, of course, that the American health system has no mechanism for controlling or monitoring the development of this epidemic. There are genuine concerns about its potentially spreading very rapidly from the US into Europe. Of course, the amount of travel between Europe and the US is vastly greater than that between Europe and Mexico, so we have to be prepared for a rapid advance.

Norman Lamb: I hear the hon. Gentleman's reassurance, but the views that I have heard expressed do not match his confidence about the American capacity to spread messages and to ensure concerted action that is similar to how we have been able to produce a national plan that can then be implemented at all local levels. He may be right, but concern is being expressed that the system in the US makes things more difficult.
	If there is to be a rapid increase in the number of cases in the US, what is the Secretary of State's advice for people travelling there—they may be planning holidays now—about whether to go and what precautions they should take when they get there? A report that appeared in  The New York Times a couple of days ago refers to a leading American infectious disease expert who has been in Mexico helping the Mexicans to tackle the swine flu outbreak and learning the lessons from that. It reports that many people who are suffering from the disease appear to be showing no symptoms of fever, which makes screening much more difficult and increases the difficulty of controlling it. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State and the authorities in this country are fully aware of what is being discovered in Mexico, but it is critical that we rapidly learn the lessons from that. According to the report, half those with the milder cases did not at any stage develop fever.
	It is also reported that 12 per cent. of patients in two Mexican hospitals are suffering from diarrhoea as one of the symptoms of their condition together with respiratory problems. The point is made in the article that there are implications for infection control, particularly in poorer countries, if diarrhoea is one of the symptoms that emerges from this strain. The advice that is reported is that stools should be tested for the presence of swine virus. When she winds up the debate, will the Minister of State say whether any such advice is coming across to the Health Protection Agency? There has been no reference so far to such testing, so has that been properly monitored?
	It is also reported in the article that the expert doctor from the United States, Dr. Wenzel, suggests that there should be testing to determine whether there are people without symptoms who are still carrying the virus. The Secretary of State mentioned one case in the UK of someone who has had a confirmed diagnosis but who has had no apparent contact with anyone who has suffered from the condition. Is a possible explanation that people carrying the virus may not be showing any symptoms? That would make control much more difficult. It is also reported that an unusual feature of the Mexican epidemic is that there are apparently five different influenza viruses circulating at the same time, making it much more difficult to plan and to judge how the swine flu virus will develop.
	All the things that I have mentioned from the article are happening in Mexico. Will the Minister comment on the international learning process to ensure that what we are finding out from Mexico is being fed into public health messages in this country, and that the appropriate advice is being disseminated?
	It is also reported that pneumonia rates at one hospital were at 120 a week, compared with an average of about 20 a week. That is clear evidence of the complications that can emerge from flu, which the Secretary of State has previously mentioned. That significant increase in pneumonia cases reinforces the importance of preparedness for such complications. Will the Minister comment on the development of the purchase of antibiotics? I know that the Secretary of State has addressed that, but I should like to know where we have got to on that.
	The final, really important, point in the report is that Mexican doctors have apparently activated a programme to allay the anxieties of health staff. The expert from the United States commented that that matter had not been sufficiently addressed in the US. It is critical to remember that there will be health and social care staff who are extremely anxious about their own health and family circumstances. The programme has been activated to provide information to staff, a hotline, psychological support—that is critical—and medical examinations. I am sure that that is part of the planning process, but can the Minister reassure us that the matter is fully recognised as an important priority?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) mentioned BA cabin crew, and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised concerns about both cabin crew and airport staff. The reports that my hon. Friend has had suggest that cabin crew working on the route between Heathrow and Mexico City have not been receiving the duty of care from BA that one might expect. It is worth making the point that the circumstances have provided a potential profit for BA. I saw a report that single tickets from Mexico City to Heathrow are being sold at $4,000 each. There is a premium in getting out of Mexico—

Norman Lamb: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We all know that flights are a perfect breeding ground for infections, and it is important to take every step to ensure that all airlines meet the highest possible standards, and that they meet their duty of care to their staff and passengers. I have had reports that different airlines are responding differently, but the same high standards should apply to all airlines, so that all staff are protected.
	Critically, the Treasury appears to have delayed the implementation of the flu line for some seven months. Under freedom of information legislation, I am seeking further documentation about why the implementation has taken so long. From newspaper reports and board minutes, we know that the NHS Direct board was getting increasingly frustrated by the apparent delays at the Treasury. Will the Minister comment on the costs incurred from the temporary arrangements that will apply until the flu line proper is in place?
	The BMA makes the point that some primary care trusts are setting up their own arrangements for local flu lines. It comments that long waiting times have been experienced by people calling NHS Direct. One case was reported of a wait of eight hours, which seems fairly incredible, but that is what the BMA reports. Is there sufficient co-ordination? If local flu lines are set up at the same time as the Government introduce temporary arrangements nationally, we need to ensure that everyone knows which line to use. The BMA also states:
	"The publication of the 'Manual Flu Line Algorithm' is regarded as crucial to ensure consistent messages and avoid postcode variation."
	Will the Minister also deal with that point?
	On Tamiflu, the BMA says:
	"Formal notification that antivirals will all be distributed centrally rather than through GPs or pharmacists is still awaited."
	Will the Minister clarify the position on that? It also says that there is a need for clarity on distribution protocols. It would be helpful if we could hear from her on that point too.
	Last weekend, newspaper reports said that primary care trusts across the country had been making variable progress on implementing plans. The BMA complains that GPs in some areas have not been involved in the planning process locally. The reports suggested that the Department of Health was refusing to publish details of the state of preparedness of primary care trusts around the country. It seems to me that publication of where every PCT has got to would help to concentrate minds and ensure that the laggards get up to the state of preparedness of the best. I ask the Minister to consider publishing where every PCT around the country has got to in its plans on preparing for the pandemic.
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire raised concern about critical care capacity. That has also been raised with me. I was told by the Royal College of General Practitioners that in the last two pandemics in this country, in 1957-58 and 1968-69, more people died of conditions other than flu. There was a higher excess mortality of people suffering from other conditions who were displaced from hospital by those who went there because of the flu pandemic. I suspect many people do not recognise that. It reinforces the absolute importance of having clear guidelines on prioritisation of cases for hospital treatment during a pandemic. The communication of those guidelines to the general public is critical. There will be many cases in which people are due to go into hospital—they may well have a planned operation—but are told that they cannot because the hospital is full as a result of the flu pandemic. That will cause a great deal of anxiety for many people. The communication of that prioritisation is vital.
	The briefing by the British Red Cross highlights the importance of the voluntary sector and the role that it can play in supporting statutory services in dealing with the challenge of a flu pandemic. It makes the point that it is essential that all volunteers who are participating in any way in support of statutory services get treated in the same way as staff to ensure that they are protected, given that they are giving their time voluntarily to help. The British Red Cross also makes the point that many volunteers will prepare to go overseas during a pandemic to help to make a difference in the real hot spots. It says that it is important that those people get access to medication speedily so that they are protected.
	I have appreciated the opportunity to raise these issues. I recognise that the Minister may not be able to deal with all the concerns that I have highlighted, but perhaps she can respond to those that she is unable to answer in writing.

John Mason: I thank the Minister for her intervention, and I agree with her. Indeed, the main point of my remarks is about the good relationship on this issue between the Governments of Scotland and the UK. Our respective countries are working extremely well on this matter, and I hope that that can be extended to other matters. We are all—those on the Government side and ourselves— committed to the NHS, although there are some differences in how we view the way ahead for it. For example, I believe that the approach of "no private GP practices" in Scotland is fundamental to the future of the NHS, whereas a different view has been taken in England.
	I understand that further cases are being investigated in Greenock, which has led to the closure of a primary school and a nursery there. As I said, I wish to make my main remarks about the good relationship between Scotland and the UK on this matter. When a previous statement was made, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid) asked about the relationship between Ministers in the two Governments and I asked about the relationship between the officials. We were both given very positive answers, and all that I have become aware of since then shows that that continues to be the case. For example, I understand that antibiotics are being procured by the Department of Health for the whole of the UK, and that as Scotland has a stockpile of some 9 million face masks, which is probably more than it needs at the moment, it has offered 1.45 million of those to England to help its supplies.
	I reckon that this is one of the many situations in which the Scottish and UK Governments seem to be working well together, and that is the way we want things to be. We do not want constant bickering, people picking fights or people putting party before country. The more responsibility the Scottish Parliament is given, the less dependent we are financially on Westminster handouts and the more likely it is that our two countries can have a mature and grown-up relationship with each other. Of course England is the larger country and it is likely to have more experts on many subjects, be it health or whatever, but that does not prevent us from mutually respecting each other as neighbours and working together on issues such as swine flu, which clearly is no respecter of international boundaries. Perhaps one of the good things that can come out of this episode is a good and strong relationship between our countries' respective health services. I very much hope that other Departments in the London Government will follow the lead of the Secretary of State for Health.
	One area in which England has been ahead of Scotland is in closing schools when there is an outbreak. I understand that the experience is that very early precautionary closure, such as occurred in Paignton, has been instrumental in disrupting the further spread of the virus. The topic has already been raised, and perhaps the Minister could confirm whether the advice continues to be that schools should be closed for seven days, whether there is some other optimum time, or whether we have to examine each case individually.
	I also understand that that Health Ministers are working together to secure and purchase early supplies of vaccine. That sounds encouraging, and I hope that we will be kept updated when negotiations with manufacturers are concluded. As we are talking about vaccines, I understand that our Cabinet Secretary this morning pointed out that if a pandemic is declared, global demand for a vaccine will outstrip the capacity to supply it. That point has also been made in this debate. There may be a danger in countries such as the UK and US squabbling over vaccines, but perhaps the more serious danger is that poorer countries will be left without adequate supplies. Maybe if we ourselves struggle with a shortage of resources to combat flu, it will test our resolve to help countries less fortunate than ourselves. I would be grateful for reassurance on that point from the Minister.
	Finally, we have seen various reactions to this outbreak. The very word "pandemic" can be a problem. It sounds very dramatic and suggests that the outbreak both widespread and serious. However, I understand it to mean that a disease is widespread, but is not necessarily serious. That understanding is gradually spreading. We could have what is technically a pandemic that is not serious in its effect.
	There is a balance to be struck between encouraging the public to be aware and careful, but not to panic. I accept that it is difficult for the WHO, and indeed all Governments, to get the balance right. The phrase "crying wolf" comes to mind, and the danger is that if something more serious comes along in a year or two, we will again call it a pandemic, but by that time no one will take us seriously. It has been suggested that it is inevitable that for every pandemic there are likely to be a dozen false alarms; I wonder whether the Minister agrees.
	Perhaps one of the good results of the MPs' expenses debacle being all over the media is that it has reduced the level of media hype over swine flu. However, as has been said, it is better to be a little over-prepared than a little under-prepared. I liked the statement on the website of Steven Novella:
	"When there is a rustling in the bushes it is appropriate to cry wolf, knowing most of the time it will just be a deer or something else. But if we wait until the wolf is at our throats, it will be too late to react."
	I support the Government's action, and especially the way in which they have worked with the Scottish Government.

Michael Jabez Foster: I am grateful for the opportunity, somewhat earlier than anticipated, to speak yet again on behalf of the fishing communities of Hastings and Rye. I am sorry that it is necessary to raise the same issue, but the urgency of the message is not getting through. I shall try to leave no ambiguity as to the importance of responding to the cry for justice for the under 10-metre fleet in Hastings and Rye. The issue is that of quota.
	As we approach the Euro elections next month, I can well appreciate why there is hostility towards the European cause within the fishing communities. The price that Britain paid for joining the EU back in the 1970s was perhaps worth while in many respects, but in terms of fishing, it was a huge cost. That, of course, was under a Conservative Government, who have never been forgiven for what happened—for the surrender to the European Community of the greater part of our fishing grounds. In return, the UK was allowed a relatively small proportion of quota, but even that gross unfairness is not the issue today. No major party is suggesting withdrawal from the EU, and thus we are stuck with the EU distribution to national governance of a negotiated share of the catch each year. It is then for national Governments to divide up that quota catch within the fishing industry, and it is that calculation that has brought the under 10-metre fleet to virtual extinction.
	I acknowledge that the under 10-metre fleet in particular may not be significant economically—not to the nation, anyway—in terms of the sector's direct contribution. However, it is often forgotten that the contribution that the sector makes to tourism and other onshore industries is significant. That is certainly the case in Hastings and Rye. The key issue is how we as a nation distribute the quota among the fishing industry. As I have brought to the Government's attention before, and it is well known, the division of 96 per cent. of total quota to the over 10-metre fleet, and just 3 per cent. to the under 10-metre fleet, is manifestly unfair. It has to change, and it needs to change soon.
	Back in December 2006—some two and half years ago—the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, having set up a Downing street policy group to look at the sustainability of small fishing fleets, such as that at Hastings and Rye, agreed to meet my local fishermen. In March 2004, the Cabinet Office strategy unit prepared a report entitled "Net Benefits", which stated:
	"the overarching aim of fisheries management should be to maximise the return to the UK of sustainable use of fishery resources and protection of the marine environment."
	So it was already Government policy—from then, at least—to support small fishing communities.
	Tony Blair wrote to me on 5 February 2007. I have the letter here, and it states:
	"the Quota Management Change Programme is already working on the future management arrangements for the inshore fleet in light of the "Net Benefits" report, and ... DEFRA is keen to involve inshore fishermen in the development of those arrangements."
	Two and a half years later, nothing at all seems to have happened. I think that the Minister will understand why it makes my fishermen constituents, and me, so angry that despite our best efforts, DEFRA is immovable. Even the efforts of the Prime Minister of the day to move things on came to naught.
	I shall not bore the House by listing the debates, discussions and meetings that have taken place in the intervening period, but it seemed to me then, and seems to me still, that the Department is in the clutches of the big boys who run the producer organisations, and is incapable of breaking out of their control. It is frequently said that the allocation of quota is based on historical catches, but the fact is that the under-10 metre fleet, which is small—indeed, it consists of the minnows of the industry—is not just sustainable, but without significant catch records. As a result, the producer organisations take the cake, or rather the quota, and DEFRA stands by and ticks the boxes. That is certainly what appears to be happening.
	If the big boys—the over-10 metre fleet—employed significantly more personnel, there would be some understanding of the current position, but that is not the case. About 50 per cent. of the personnel of the United Kingdom fishing industry are employed in the over-10 metre sector, and the other 50 per cent. in the under-10 metre sector. So, where is the justice in the current arrangement? Those in the under-10 metre sector are not even permitted to form their own producer organisation in order to bid for their share of the quota.
	The Government seem to suggest that quota is based on historical calculations of catch that cannot be altered. Why? The quota that the UK receives belongs to the UK, not to the producer organisations or to any particular sector. If fairness so demands, it is for the Government to exercise their discretion without fear of producer organisations taking the huff. A doubling of the quota available to the under-10-metre sector would make little difference to the over-10 metre industry, but it would be a life-saving change for the under-10 metre fleet.
	My hon. Friend the Minister was the first person for a long time to acknowledge and understand the injustice, and I compliment him on that. Earlier in the year, a new division for allocation of cod quota was created in area 7D. That was a big step forward, and I do not think it too much to say that those in my local under-10 metre industry were elated about the possibility of a fair deal as a consequence. Quota is normally—or so it is said—distributed on the basis of the historical catch. In area 7D, which is the bit off the south coast between Hastings and Dover, the under-10 metre fleet accounts for 93 per cent. of the fishing vessels in the area and 83 per cent. of the fishermen employed. There was real hope that the new allocation would follow the established pattern.
	On 18 February, my hon. Friend the Minister wrote to the chief executives of the producer organisations and other interested parties, proposing that a quota of 109 tonnes—live weight—or 70 per cent. of the overall total should be allocated to the under-10 metre sector in area 7D. The proposed quota was apparently based on official records showing actual landings at that percentage. The under-10 metre fleet believed that its share was even greater, but it did not look a gift horse in the mouth. The allocation appeared to mean that its demands were being recognised for the first time, while also conforming to the historical basis of allocation.
	While the 70:30 split was still minimal, the principle had been established, and my hon. Friend the Minister was held in high esteem as a result. What happened then, however, was nothing short of an outrage. Officials talked again to the producer organisations and the policy was changed around completely: 70 per cent. was now to go to the south-west producer organisation, which only seldom fishes in the area, and 30 per cent. to the under-10 metre sector. I am told that the south-west producer organisation, which has that 70 per cent., for the main part sells it on. It is not even the local fishing industry. This is an outrage, and it is barmy. There is no explanation. What is going on?
	I am sorry to be so forceful to my friend the Minister, who I know really does work hard on this, but the forces of darkness are out there and they are defeating his best efforts. I am asking him to be bold and stand up for fairness and justice, given his acceptance of the argument. We do not need to go over the argument again, as he has accepted it; it is now just a matter of implementing it.
	My friend the Minister is very thoughtful, and I know, by reason of his initial proposals, that he has the interests of the under-10 metre fleet at heart. He was good enough to hold a recent meeting with me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who has a similar interest to me, at which he expressed, first, a clear desire that measures be put in place to ensure the continuity of the under-10 metre fleet—that is to say, that it should have sufficient income to survive—and, secondly, that he would want to enter into a dialogue with all the parties, including the producer organisation and the New Under Ten Fishermen's Association, which now represents the under-10 metre fleet, to ensure that the allocation of quota is more fairly distributed.
	I know that my hon. Friend is wholly genuine in that desire. However, I have to tell him that that is what the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, asked should happen some two and a half years ago, and I cannot share his optimism that further discussions will now make a difference. I fear that this will not be settled by negotiation. It will be settled by decisions being made along the lines of those that my hon. Friend the Minister earlier proposed. I say as loudly and clearly as I can that the Minister has the obligation to divvy up the quota fairly to allow my constituents to survive.
	I understand that my hon. Friend does not want to rock the boat—the industry is dangerous enough already—but the under-10 metre industry is not too worried about risking the wrath of the producer organisation and forgoing the crumbs from its table. Now this is not only an issue about survival—although it is about that—but one of justice. I am fairly sure that no court in the land will accept that the current arrangement is fair. Sadly, I think that opinion will be tested, because Paul Joy and his colleagues in NUTFA have now issued proceedings in the courts. That action will inevitably challenge the distribution unless a very early reversal of the recent decision is made.
	I challenge my friend the Minister to give an unequivocal answer as to the justification for the most recent decision of the 96 per cent:3 per cent. split and for the 70:30 split in area 7D in favour of half the total industry, when it was the established practice that that be determined on catch records. I know the answer to that question; I would not ask it if I did not. The answer is that it cannot be justified. There is no argument; there is no basis on which it can be justified. That is why I encourage him to take this bold stand now to remedy that historic failing—not in the fullness of time, but in the here and now.
	I anticipate that my hon. Friend the Minister's response will be as courteous and thoughtful as it always is, but, with respect, I just want to hear the following words: "Yes, you're right. We are going to make the change. We understand the justice of the case."